You can't charge someone with attempted murder until after they've already attempted it... In case you hadn't noticed, the tense of "attempted" is past tense. The most you can charge them with intent to commit murder, or conspiracy to commit murder.
If you catch them before they commit a crime based on a so-called prediction they would commit a crime, then they won't be able to commit the crime, which suggests that the prediction is invariably fallible. Either you predict that someone will commit a crime and stop them before they do making the prediction wrong, or else you fail to predict that someone will commit a crime in the first place. In both cases, the mechanism for predicting crimes fails unless it is not used to stop the crime from occurring (which is pointless, obviously).
You can even NAT IPv6 if you really want to.... but at least you'll never *need* to because of ip shortage. Further, it is theoretically possible to design an extension to IPv6 that can route packets right through a NAT, so end-to-end connectivity is still possible, as long as the device, as well as the sender and recipient, are all configured to understand and utilize that extension. Any intermediate devices that the packets may pass through would not need to understand the specific extension at all.
... at least 50% of the time to claim ownership, I have no problem with someone owning stuff in space, with the caveat that only past physical presence counts towards the 50%.
... equivalent to admitting that one is guilty of at least one thing that is just as bad as whatever it is they are being charged with, or that what one is being charged with is actually entirely accurate?
Granted, they don't know exactly what that something one is evidently guilty of might be, but still...
Maybe I'm being just a goofy non-American here, but I honestly don't understand the point. In the general case, would someone explain to me how this constitutional amendment protects genuinely innocent people?
I am somewhat impressed that at least one moderator was apparently able to pick up on this joke without any hints. Although I suppose it's also possible that the joke wasn't really that funny.
I probably could have made it a little less esoteric by explicitly linking to
U+1F404 and
U+1F42E, but in all honesty, that didn't occur to me at the time.
Oh, right.... sorry. I was thinking you were confusing Matt Damon with Matthew McConaughey... geeze, yeah.... I completely forgot about that character.
... then you may as well outsource your PCB creation.
But I see the factor of a delay as less of a matter of whether or not one *NEEDS* to have it done quickly and more simply a matter of whether getting it done right away is simply something that they might *want*.
But what would bother me a lot is if people didn't have a choice... or if any so-called choice was actually a non-issue because only one of the options is actually both practical and readily available to them.
If 200gb is all you need, sure.... My mac, which my (grown) kids use quite a bit for movie editing for their film projects, has 2TB of storage and they use well over 50% of the hard drive.
CaH is partially luck-based, partially meme based but also based upon understanding the round interpreter's background, emotional reactions, feelings, humor etc.
And it's that understanding that makes me think a computer wouldn't do it very well. It might be able to gauge a popularity score with the general public for a response, but it ultimately depends on the personality of each round's caller.
Ever played with super-religious older people?
I wouldn't want to.... it would cross a line, IMO. I can respect their values when I am around them and not deliberately do things that I *know* will offend them, even if I don't subscribe to those values myself.
I envision a scenario where as soon as the shit hit the fan on this, somebody really high up in the company who was in the know on this went into the necessary files and altered the documentation so that they were not incriminated.
It's not about getting 10x the storage space for the same money as much as it is spending 10x the money for the same amount of storage space (which can spell the difference between economically viable and not) when your storage needs are much more demanding than just a couple of hundred gigabytes.
It apparently escaped your attention that I was referring to how much storage you could have otherwise purchased for the same amount as you spent on your ssd. Hey, it's your money, and you can spend it however you want, but don't assume that everyone is so indifferent about how far their dollars will actually go. For a quarter of what you spent on the ssd, one could buy 2tb of platter space, which is an entirely typical desktop configuration in 2015.
It's not just simply that it costs more per gigabyte, as much as it is that the difference in price at the scale at which storage is actually employed up spelling the difference between something that is economically viable and something that is not. You can buy a 2TB HD for about $75, which is cheap. You can also spend roughly 10 times that for the equivalent storage in flash, which isn't so cheap anymore.
It's only over for those for whom economics is superfluous, and don't particularly care how they spend their money. That same $400 that bought you a TB Sata SSD could also have easily afforded more than 8TB of hard drive space.
... on high capacity SSD's being over what you'd pay for an equivalent amount of storage on a hard drive is the single biggest issue with flash storage, in general.
Until that issue is settled, SSD's can really only replace the floppy, IMO... but not the hard drive.
Software engineers have always been treated differently than other engineers. I wasn't even aware that software engineers participated in the Iron Ring ceremony at all.
.... only tell you who you can reasonably expect someone to be, but should not be relied on to tell you who somebody actually is.
Relying on any so-called completely unique feature of every human being that may be currently impossible or at least extraordinarily difficult to replicate makes the implicit assumption that no technology could potentially invented that will make forging it possible or viable.
In Canada, at least, Engineers are required to take an oath, not unlike the requirement for Doctors.
I am an Engineer.
In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.
Since the Stone Age, Human Progress has been spurred by the Engineering Genius. Engineers have made usable Nature's vast resources of Materials and Energy for Humanity's Benefit.
Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the Principles of Science and the Means of Technology. Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experiences, my efforts would be feeble.
As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't charge someone with attempted murder until after they've already attempted it... In case you hadn't noticed, the tense of "attempted" is past tense. The most you can charge them with intent to commit murder, or conspiracy to commit murder.
If you catch them before they commit a crime based on a so-called prediction they would commit a crime, then they won't be able to commit the crime, which suggests that the prediction is invariably fallible. Either you predict that someone will commit a crime and stop them before they do making the prediction wrong, or else you fail to predict that someone will commit a crime in the first place. In both cases, the mechanism for predicting crimes fails unless it is not used to stop the crime from occurring (which is pointless, obviously).
You can even NAT IPv6 if you really want to.... but at least you'll never *need* to because of ip shortage. Further, it is theoretically possible to design an extension to IPv6 that can route packets right through a NAT, so end-to-end connectivity is still possible, as long as the device, as well as the sender and recipient, are all configured to understand and utilize that extension. Any intermediate devices that the packets may pass through would not need to understand the specific extension at all.
... at least 50% of the time to claim ownership, I have no problem with someone owning stuff in space, with the caveat that only past physical presence counts towards the 50%.
Granted, they don't know exactly what that something one is evidently guilty of might be, but still...
Maybe I'm being just a goofy non-American here, but I honestly don't understand the point. In the general case, would someone explain to me how this constitutional amendment protects genuinely innocent people?
I am somewhat impressed that at least one moderator was apparently able to pick up on this joke without any hints. Although I suppose it's also possible that the joke wasn't really that funny.
I probably could have made it a little less esoteric by explicitly linking to U+1F404 and U+1F42E, but in all honesty, that didn't occur to me at the time.
Which one? U+1F404 or U+1F42E?
Yeah.... I realized my error. Mod me -1 *wrong*.
Oh, right.... sorry. I was thinking you were confusing Matt Damon with Matthew McConaughey... geeze, yeah.... I completely forgot about that character.
Damon wasn't in Interstellar
But I see the factor of a delay as less of a matter of whether or not one *NEEDS* to have it done quickly and more simply a matter of whether getting it done right away is simply something that they might *want*.
But what would bother me a lot is if people didn't have a choice... or if any so-called choice was actually a non-issue because only one of the options is actually both practical and readily available to them.
If 200gb is all you need, sure.... My mac, which my (grown) kids use quite a bit for movie editing for their film projects, has 2TB of storage and they use well over 50% of the hard drive.
I suggested it would be someone higher on the food chain.
And it's that understanding that makes me think a computer wouldn't do it very well. It might be able to gauge a popularity score with the general public for a response, but it ultimately depends on the personality of each round's caller.
I wouldn't want to.... it would cross a line, IMO. I can respect their values when I am around them and not deliberately do things that I *know* will offend them, even if I don't subscribe to those values myself.
I envision a scenario where as soon as the shit hit the fan on this, somebody really high up in the company who was in the know on this went into the necessary files and altered the documentation so that they were not incriminated.
It's not about getting 10x the storage space for the same money as much as it is spending 10x the money for the same amount of storage space (which can spell the difference between economically viable and not) when your storage needs are much more demanding than just a couple of hundred gigabytes.
It apparently escaped your attention that I was referring to how much storage you could have otherwise purchased for the same amount as you spent on your ssd. Hey, it's your money, and you can spend it however you want, but don't assume that everyone is so indifferent about how far their dollars will actually go. For a quarter of what you spent on the ssd, one could buy 2tb of platter space, which is an entirely typical desktop configuration in 2015.
It's not just simply that it costs more per gigabyte, as much as it is that the difference in price at the scale at which storage is actually employed up spelling the difference between something that is economically viable and something that is not. You can buy a 2TB HD for about $75, which is cheap. You can also spend roughly 10 times that for the equivalent storage in flash, which isn't so cheap anymore.
It's only over for those for whom economics is superfluous, and don't particularly care how they spend their money. That same $400 that bought you a TB Sata SSD could also have easily afforded more than 8TB of hard drive space.
Since you asked "why not", of course.
Until that issue is settled, SSD's can really only replace the floppy, IMO... but not the hard drive.
Then they shouldn't be getting called "engineers" in the first place.
Software engineers have always been treated differently than other engineers. I wasn't even aware that software engineers participated in the Iron Ring ceremony at all.
Relying on any so-called completely unique feature of every human being that may be currently impossible or at least extraordinarily difficult to replicate makes the implicit assumption that no technology could potentially invented that will make forging it possible or viable.